White House Official Floated Withdrawing U.S. Forces to Please Putin - The Daily Beast today

[Mason66]

This administration is owned by Russia.

Are the pictures and videos of Trump doing terrible things in the hotel suite that bad?:lol:

OK it has been a year now, almost.

Please post some truth to back up your allegation that the White House is owned by Russia.

Surely something has been done to prove that by now.

 

[Mason66]

The Trump Fanboyz predictably refuse to accept the report.

I accept it.

Putin owns Trump.

You call gossip a report?

 

[Mason66]

I think appeasing Putin as one of the first orders of business for Trump stinks to high heaven given the many suspicions about his ties to Russia & Putin & the documented Russian tampering with our election via the big targeted ad buys by RT & Sputnik, both big Russian media outlets working for Putin. This should be on Mueller's bucket list.

Quid pro quo? What quid pro quo?

What proof do you have that anything was done to appease Putin?

 

[Mason66]

For what?

The guy is rumored to have had a thought. Surely that should be enough for an investigation.

 

[Mason66]

This guy Harrington worked for Flynn who worked for Trump. And we all know that Trump wants to make Putin happy. The question is 'Why is that?'

Proof?

Come on, it has been a year.

You should have proof by now.

 

[Mason66]

How would you feel if the Russians had a few dozen divisions of troops along the Mexican border? A bit paranoid perhaps?

Now you are backing Russia's position?

You are pro-Russia now?

 

[danarhea]

Understanding that 42% of the women who voted voted Trump.

You don't have to be a male to be a Trumpnevik. Russia accepts both sexes for citizenship.

 

[apdst]

The guy is rumored to have had a thought. Surely that should be enough for an investigation.

A thought the Liberals don't like, at that.

 

[JacksinPA]

Now you are backing Russia's position?

You are pro-Russia now?

No, not in the slightest. Just using this model to show what our reaction would be if the shoe were on the other foot.

 

[apdst]

No, not in the slightest. Just using this model to show what our reaction would be if the shoe were on the other foot.

It sounds like you're siding with Russia.

 

[beerftw]

Nazi Germany you say. Sounds like Trump talking about the FBI.

Nato has 7000 troops deployed along the Russian border from the Baltic to the Black Sea. This includes from USA 600 troops in the Baltic states, 300 in Norway, a battalion in western Poland and a brigade in northwest Poland near the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. This is not an invasion force nor is it an advance invasion force. So get real over there cause you're talking about invading Russia. The sovereign territory of Mother Russia is threatened by no one nor will it be threatened by anyone.

Here meanwhile is more like what the U.S. has in Latvia....

This is it folks. All of 'em. They're our guys on the spot they are. It's more than enough to keep the bear from the door. So now the Russians have their hands full and Putin knows it.

And here again is the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad dropped in between Poland and Lithuania. We see Russia borders Latvia and Estonia. All three were Soviet possessions from 1945 until only recently. Each of 'em joined Nato to keep the bear frozen out for good. They know from experience.

Trump and the Putin-Trump Fanboyz are instead talking about Nazis. The blatant contradiction is that Trump and His Fanboyz don't like WW II Nazis but they say Nazis in Charlottesville are "good people." And that the MSM in the USA "are the enemy of the people."

You are using nato forces operating in those countries, and ignoring the fact they are nato countries, meaning each of those nato countries is ibligated to back nato and it's mission, so in reality it is the militaries of all those countries, not just small detatchments placed in certain countries.

Add to that nato can mobilize rapidly(just like russia can) to move eastward, add to that besides hitler, napolean tried the same with russia, so have many countries to their west, as well as one country to their east(japan), including many of their neighbors. Russia has been backstabbed so many times that they would likely go to war under further expanion to their borders than wait for what they assume is the next backstab in the works.

 

[Tangmo]

You are using nato forces operating in those countries, and ignoring the fact they are nato countries, meaning each of those nato countries is ibligated to back nato and it's mission, so in reality it is the militaries of all those countries, not just small detatchments placed in certain countries.

Add to that nato can mobilize rapidly(just like russia can) to move eastward, add to that besides hitler, napolean tried the same with russia, so have many countries to their west, as well as one country to their east(japan), including many of their neighbors. Russia has been backstabbed so many times that they would likely go to war under further expanion to their borders than wait for what they assume is the next backstab in the works.

Russia getting backstabbed by history and by its neighboring states besides -- that's a good one. Nyet indeed. It is completely wrong and is contrary to history.

IMPERIAL EXPANSION, RUSSIA

Napoleon initiated the modern era of warfare and Hitler's most elite generals upped the game led by Hans Guderian the armor commander who flashed his blitzkrieg east and west. A strategist whether military or civilian needs to know the worst nightmare of a country and its people: In Russia the worst nightmare is another Napoleon or Hitler. Concomitantly, in France it's another Napoleon and in Germany it's another Hitler. In USA which even in the nuclear age is still served by its strategic geography, i.e., the oceans, the worst nightmare is always the all powerful central state within.

In Russia they expanded their strategic geography from Muscovy to Alaska, from Siberia to Crimea. It is geographically the largest country. No one is going to conquer it. Imperial Showa Japan was never going to go much beyond Manchuko if at all. Russia which occupied the Alaska wilderness was never going to invade to conquer Japan, or China, or in North America. Russia wanted only its neighbors and their lands....


The transformation of the tiny principahty of Moscow into a Eurasian empire took place over several centuries, but by the end of the seventeenth century Russia had become the largest country in the world. No single motivation (‘‘urge to the sea,’’ fear of foreign invasion or domination, control of trade routes, unbridled expansionism) explains all Russian territorial acquisitions in the early modern period, and the process is best viewed as a series of ad hoc decisions, opportunities, and actions. Recent commentators have concluded that no messianic (‘‘theory of the Third Rome’’) or programmatic (the spurious ‘‘testament of Peter I’’) texts guided Russian expansion.

IMPERIAL EXPANSION, RUSSIA


Until Putin.


“For liberals,” writes James Sherr, “the basis of legitimacy is consent. . . . for Russia and its allies, the basis of legitimacy is ‘history,’ which in the post-Hegelian lexicon describes what has yet to occur.”

There’s nothing really secret about Putin’s ambitions. In national security concept papers published in 2008 and 2009 the Kremlin makes clear that Russia does not share Western interests. In these documents, the Kremlin sees American influence and NATO as a threat. [The papers] also bring our attention to a January 2012 Nezavisimaya Gazeta article authored by Putin, wherein the Russian president lays out a broad and ambitious vision for a new, multi-ethnic Russian empire based on “Russian values.”

“Recently a senior Russian official, ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, said ‘the established world order is undergoing a foundational shake up with the Crimea, Russia and Brexit.

“’Russia can now fight a conventional war in Europe and win. Russia is the only nation that will remain relevant forever.

“’Any other country is dispensable and that includes the United States.

"We are at end game now.’”

Beyond Crimea: What Vladimir Putin Really Wants | World Affairs Journal



Yakovenko is being belligerent on authority of Putin.

Russia has been the opposite of the USA Constitution for 1000 years. We see however there are Americans who approve and who want the USA to be more like Russia than the other way around. There are indeed Americans who want to take the USA back to the Old World of Imperial Russia and its present oligarch Putin. Youse over there can forget it.

 

[Tangmo]

You call gossip a report?

Kevin Harrington is a Flynnstone. He's still in the White House. McMaster squelched the crackpot idea before it could be sent to Trump in Trump's coloring book. The daily one. Y'know, the Executive Coloring Book. Trump being the master negotiator and dealmaker would have gone ahead with the withdrawal unilaterally, getting nothing in return. So knowing this I already sent an email to the SH, er, WH, telling Trump to give me ownership of Trump Tower as a goodwill gesture toward Putin. That would please Trump for sure. It might even make Trump jump to it.

 

[beerftw]

Russia getting backstabbed by history and by its neighboring states besides -- that's a good one. Nyet indeed. It is completely wrong and is contrary to history.

IMPERIAL EXPANSION, RUSSIA

Napoleon initiated the modern era of warfare and Hitler's most elite generals upped the game led by Hans Guderian the armor commander who flashed his blitzkrieg east and west. A strategist whether military or civilian needs to know the worst nightmare of a country and its people: In Russia the worst nightmare is another Napoleon or Hitler. Concomitantly, in France it's another Napoleon and in Germany it's another Hitler. In USA which even in the nuclear age is still served by its strategic geography, i.e., the oceans, the worst nightmare is always the all powerful central state within.

In Russia they expanded their strategic geography from Muscovy to Alaska, from Siberia to Crimea. It is geographically the largest country. No one is going to conquer it. Imperial Showa Japan was never going to go much beyond Manchuko if at all. Russia which occupied the Alaska wilderness was never going to invade to conquer Japan, or China, or in North America. Russia wanted only its neighbors and their lands....


The transformation of the tiny principahty of Moscow into a Eurasian empire took place over several centuries, but by the end of the seventeenth century Russia had become the largest country in the world. No single motivation (‘‘urge to the sea,’’ fear of foreign invasion or domination, control of trade routes, unbridled expansionism) explains all Russian territorial acquisitions in the early modern period, and the process is best viewed as a series of ad hoc decisions, opportunities, and actions. Recent commentators have concluded that no messianic (‘‘theory of the Third Rome’’) or programmatic (the spurious ‘‘testament of Peter I’’) texts guided Russian expansion.

IMPERIAL EXPANSION, RUSSIA


Until Putin.


“For liberals,” writes James Sherr, “the basis of legitimacy is consent. . . . for Russia and its allies, the basis of legitimacy is ‘history,’ which in the post-Hegelian lexicon describes what has yet to occur.”

There’s nothing really secret about Putin’s ambitions. In national security concept papers published in 2008 and 2009 the Kremlin makes clear that Russia does not share Western interests. In these documents, the Kremlin sees American influence and NATO as a threat. [The papers] also bring our attention to a January 2012 Nezavisimaya Gazeta article authored by Putin, wherein the Russian president lays out a broad and ambitious vision for a new, multi-ethnic Russian empire based on “Russian values.”

“Recently a senior Russian official, ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, said ‘the established world order is undergoing a foundational shake up with the Crimea, Russia and Brexit.

“’Russia can now fight a conventional war in Europe and win. Russia is the only nation that will remain relevant forever.

“’Any other country is dispensable and that includes the United States.

"We are at end game now.’”

Beyond Crimea: What Vladimir Putin Really Wants | World Affairs Journal



Yakovenko is being belligerent on authority of Putin.

Russia has been the opposite of the USA Constitution for 1000 years. We see however there are Americans who approve and who want the USA to be more like Russia than the other way around. There are indeed Americans who want to take the USA back to the Old World of Imperial Russia and its present oligarch Putin. Youse over there can forget it.

For starters russia has not been opposite of the us constitution for 1000 years, as most of that time frame the us nor it's constitution existed.

To note besides germany and france, poland sweden and at times coalitions of govts including england have invaded russia. russia has been invaded 4 times in the last 130 or so years, backstabbed numerous mtimes as well. Just because they were not defeated in most of them, does not mean russians should just bow down to what foreign powers tell them, with both hitler and napoleon, russia came close to losing. With napoleon they had to retreat to siberia far inland inside russia and used scorched earth tactics, with hitler they not only needed to retreat further inland, they ended up losing astonomical numbers to defeat his army, and even needed the help of the us to send them supplies and technology to survive the eastern front invasion.


What you are doing is attempting to justify the behavior that could cause world war three and nuclear war, it is like cornering a dog and pouring acid on it's face but then when the dog bites you calling the dog the aggressor.

 

[Tangmo]

For starters russia has not been opposite of the us constitution for 1000 years, as most of that time frame the us nor it's constitution existed.

To note besides germany and france, poland sweden and at times coalitions of govts including england have invaded russia. russia has been invaded 4 times in the last 130 or so years, backstabbed numerous mtimes as well. Just because they were not defeated in most of them, does not mean russians should just bow down to what foreign powers tell them, with both hitler and napoleon, russia came close to losing. With napoleon they had to retreat to siberia far inland inside russia and used scorched earth tactics, with hitler they not only needed to retreat further inland, they ended up losing astonomical numbers to defeat his army, and even needed the help of the us to send them supplies and technology to survive the eastern front invasion.


What you are doing is attempting to justify the behavior that could cause world war three and nuclear war, it is like cornering a dog and pouring acid on it's face but then when the dog bites you calling the dog the aggressor.

Had you made the post to Trump he would have demanded pictures instead. But only some. And maybe a video in the spastic MTV quickie flash format with lotsa women.

Zing you also missed my point about the U.S. Constitution and Russia's 1000 years of Czars. The mention zeros in on the Russian long term culture of dictatorship and land seizures of other countries that the USA does not have. Indeed, Russians learned to suffer over a millenium of Czars so they're survivalists and proud of it, demanding ever more suffering to show they can take it. Y'know, like how Russians love Putin and the sanctions that knocked back GDP and hit so many items in Russian life to include the elites who have since become ever more grabby. So yes, it is incongruous for American Conservatives and other Republicans to want life in the USA to be more like life in Russia rather than the other way around.

Over 1000 years of Czarist expansion Russia has always been the Big Dog on the Block -- every block from the Baltic and Black Sea to the Urals and out to the Pacific. Which is why the Crimean War alliance against Russia which in 1853 took on the Ottoman Empire too stopped Russia trying to seize Constantinople and expand into the Med. If Russia had its way back then it might well control the Med to include the present. Putin is fighting in Syria to protect his one miserable naval port, create a second one and to preserve, protect, defend yet another miserable fellow dictator Assad.

Many of the former Soviet Republics applied to EU and sought successfully Nato membership because Russia is the Big Dog of their history. We know Nato is not going to invade Russia. Russia knows and the world knows no one post WW II is going to invade or attack Russia. Rather, Russia the Motherwhatever is inherently expansionist and Putin the KGB-Czarist is both irredentist and revanchist. Putin is a Make Eternal Russia Great Again nationalist. Same as the Chinese are irredentist and revanchist to Make China Great Again. Same as Mussolini and Hitler were all of the above.

 

[Soopairik]

It sounds like you're siding with Russia.

Why, because he disagrees with you?

 

[Tangmo]

It is rather hard to reconcile that contradiction. I think it is safe to state that they abide American Nazi wannabes simply because they rallied for their guy. That's how shallow we are to our convictions in this country anymore. From shrugging at a denigration of Vietnam Veterans to abiding the supremacists, some Americans appear to be struggling with their own identities.

American Conservatives to include too many Republicans have for a long time wanted the USA to be more like Putin's Russia than the other way around. The USA right have been consistent and certain in this -- profoundly. Putin himself is supporting financially many European rightwing parties to include LePen among others such as in Austria. Austria is an historical hotbed of rightwing extremes to include the corporal fuehrer who returned Austria to Germany. Putin too is irredentist....


a member of a party in any country advocating the acquisition of some region included in another country by reason of cultural, historical, ethnic, racial, or other ties.

"And irredentism is one of the worst political plagues for all the three parties who usually suffer from it."

The Inside Story Of The Peace Conference
Emile Joseph Dillon

Irredentism | Define Irredentism at Dictionary.com


Irredentism and revanchism (revenge) characterized the 1919 Conference and Treaty of Versailles. Some people such as Putin haven't ever got beyond it or over it. Putin called the collapse of Soviet Russia the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century. Russian history informs us of the Russian future as Russians envisage it. Central to it are 21st century cyber attacks against American democracy and Constitution.

 

[MSgt]

American Conservatives to include too many Republicans have for a long time wanted the USA to be more like Putin's Russia than the other way around. The USA right have been consistent and certain in this -- profoundly. Putin himself is supporting financially many European rightwing parties to include LePen among others such as in Austria. Austria is an historical hotbed of rightwing extremes to include the corporal fuehrer who returned Austria to Germany. Putin too is irredentist....

*SNIPPED*

Yeah, but this is more of a shallow glossing...

- Right Wingism has historically flowed back and forth in Europe. The same is true for Leftist displays of rebellion (and terror) in the streets. Like most of our governments, Putin will seek to exploit what he can for his own interests.

- There is no putting the Soviet Union back together because of its history. It formed out of the new communist ideal that took root in the east, not the west as Marx envisioned. And by the end of the Cold War, communism had proven a bust (at least for large countries). With the ideal busted, the Soviet Union cracked. There really is no return. Irredentism, though it may be a Putin fantasy, just can't practically apply here.

- And cyber attacks are on everybody's table. It's just the latest technological weapon.

Under the gloss, I believe that what we are witnessing right now is a product of ignorance and fear. The world has gone through some severe changes since the late 1980s, The Internet has exacerbated those changes and presents information at lightning speeds. Most people could barely reconcile their beliefs with a book they just read. Now they reconcile (and deny) throughout the day with every new Google search and with every new dramatic "breaking news" event on television. Everything becomes an assault on their senses and their personal beliefs.

- Two of the Abrahamic religions are a mess. It is certainly not just Islam's internal struggle with two competing philosophies. The Islamist side eventually created extreme militancy and this desperation and anger at a world that they believe attacks them, has manifested into the mindless mass murder of even their own as an enemy of the religion. Well, American Christians not only created a delusional world where liberals are waging a war on their Christmas, but have actually argued Noah as a Founding Father. And they have gone from holding Swaggart, Baker, and Clinton responsible for their sexual depravities and immorality to enthusiastically defending Trump and Moore. They too have betrayed their own traditional ideals of their religion while accusing the rest as enemies of God. You see it right here in this site. If you dare criticize Trump or Moore, then you are defaulted into just being a "liberal."

- Because of the Middle East mess, which is also a consequence of centuries of colonialism and imperialism, Europeans are experiencing mass refugee issues that exacerbate their social systems. Over time, it becomes easy to simply point and blame while traditionalists remind the population how good it used to be before the immigrant hoard and those social systems. Americans, always eager to latch on to the immigrant issue, created a delusional world where immigrants from Mexico are either taking their jobs and creating mass crime or provide a door for terrorists-seeking monsters who hide in their closets. And so they attack immigration and extend that into a minority issue where black NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem is really just a direct personal assault on their ideals of patriotism.

Ultimately, what we see today are mass segments of populations who have placed themselves on the defense. Far too many people in the world do not understand their world anymore and so they lash out and dream of golden ages when all was "right." This would involve a measure of traditionalism; and traditionalism has always been associated to conservatism (or right wing elements). Sustaining that emotion eventually moves people to start betraying who they are as they unwittingly start to redefine themselves and brand others as enemies. This involves xenophobia, extreme nationalism, and plain irrationality. I mean, when "Liberals" simply move to try to make school lunches healthier for the nation's children and Conservatives actually lash out in defiance while arguing that pizza is a vegetable, people really do need to step back and wonder what is going on. Conservatives don't want America to be like Putin's Russia. They are just lost in a changing world that they refuse to understand; and have chosen to construct concrete bunkers around themselves where logic and reasoning cannot penetrate because it interferes with their developed sense of victimhood.

 

[Tangmo]

Yeah, but this is more of a shallow glossing...

Like most of our governments, Putin will seek to exploit what he can for his own interests.

Irredentism, though it may be a Putin fantasy, just can't practically apply here.

- And cyber attacks are on everybody's table. It's just the latest technological weapon.

I believe that what we are witnessing right now is a product of ignorance and fear. The world has gone through some severe changes since the late 1980s, The Internet has exacerbated those changes and presents information at lightning speeds. Most people could barely reconcile their beliefs with a book they just read.

<<snip snip snip and snip>>

Over time, it becomes easy to simply point and blame while traditionalists remind the population how good it used to be before the immigrant hoard and those social systems. Americans, always eager to latch on to the immigrant issue, created a delusional world where immigrants from Mexico are either taking their jobs and creating mass crime or provide a door for terrorists-seeking monsters who hide in their closets. And so they attack immigration and extend that into a minority issue where black NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem is really just a direct personal assault on their ideals of patriotism.

Far too many people in the world do not understand their world anymore and so they lash out and dream of golden ages when all was "right." This would involve a measure of traditionalism; and traditionalism has always been associated to conservatism (or right wing elements). Sustaining that emotion eventually moves people to start betraying who they are as they unwittingly start to redefine themselves and brand others as enemies. This involves xenophobia, extreme nationalism, and plain irrationality. I mean, when "Liberals" simply move to try to make school lunches healthier for the nation's children and Conservatives actually lash out in defiance. Conservatives don't want America to be like Putin's Russia. They are just lost in a changing world that they refuse to understand; and have chosen to construct concrete bunkers around themselves where logic and reasoning cannot penetrate because it interferes with their developed sense of victimhood.

American Conservatives to include most Republicans like Putin's world which is the Old World. Putin is as we know a classic Russian strongman dictator who in this day and age gives transparent illusions of democracy -- and Putin knows it. American Conservatives like the strongman part but disapprove of Putin's pretending to have democracy. Conservatives can tolerate the pretensions along their way to strongman rule in the USA the same as Putin's rule or similar to it.

The Conservatives of today -- led by the rightwhingenuts -- were the guys in 1788-89 who had no use of the Bill of Rights. Most states had been ratifying the Constitution without regard of anything resembling the Bill of Rights. Conservatives of the time came up short on ratification however when the delegates from Massachusetts and New York (state) said, no Bill of Rights, no ratification of the Constitution. Period. The Bill of Rights more than anything in respect of the Constitution made USA a liberal democracy (in a republican form of government). All the Conservatives of today had to do at the time back then wuz to ignore the Bill or Rights or anything like it. The initiative to include classic liberalism in the Constitution, i.e., including a Bill of Rights, rested on the shoulders of the classic liberals.

So the classic liberals of the time took the initiative. NY and MA delegates were needed to ratify so they arm twisted their conservatives peers. NY and MA delegates got the other states to agree to adopt the Bill immediately after NY and MA delegates voted to ratify the document -- contingent of course on the other states adopting the Bill. The deal wuz delivered and we do indeed have the Bill of Rights.

American Conservatives have from then to now opposed virtually every Supreme Court decision implementing the Bill of Rights. We know the Declaration of Independence is not a binding document but Scotus has drawn on it for inspiration also, e.g., all men are created equal and so on. Conservatives hate that classic liberal stuff. Detest and despise it. Free press included given the MSM takes seriously and earnestly the Bill and the Document itself. And the role of MSM in a liberal democracy -- and so on.

American Conservatives to include of course many Republicans want a strongman republic first and foremost. Pretensions of democracy can be tolerated by 'em. Classic liberalism, however, never. Putin's their guy all the way and Trump is his agent. American Conservatives have got their long dreamed for deliverance; they love it and they are determined not to allow the moment to pass.

 

[American]

Few problems.

1: Assuming there is truth to this: Someone proposes something which is dismissed by pretty much everyone and this feeds into your fear somehow? Why?

2: Just un-named sources...again. Nothing to back up what those "sources" said. I have no problem with un-named sources....so long as those un-named sources bring proof with them. You know, like what happened with Nixon?

3: It's the Daily Beast. They're about as dependable as CNN or Fox. Which is to say...they're not dependable at all.

It's amusing watching Democrats (who practically loath the military) get wrapped around the axle by a single advisor's suggestion, which was rejected. It's obviously political. I wonder what they're saying about Trump wanting a bigger military and more money to fund it. Obvious Russian collusion!

 

[MSgt]

American Conservatives to include most Republicans like Putin's world which is the Old World.

That would be that "golden age" sentiment. But I'm not so sure about wanting Putin's world. I don't think American Conservatives know what they want. Just look where they were and what they are now...

- From working with Democrats to fix the hole in the Ozone Layer - to denying the science of Global Warming because Liberals accept it.
- From supporting McCain because he served - to laughing with Trump as he denigrates Vietnam Vets.
- From holding evangelists, like Swaggart and Bakker, and Bill Clinton accountable for sexual misconduct and adultery - to defending Trump's recording and Roy Moore's past.
- From complaining about Obama increasing the national debt - to praising Trump for increasing it.
- From scoffing and criticizing communism and socialism - to flipping opinions about Putin back and forth in accordance to what Trump say's from week to week.

I don't think American Conservatives have an identity anymore because they had spent eight years being broken down by the GOP's silly little Tea Party shallow rhetoric and Fox News' propaganda. Remember when Sarah Palin was "America's Sweetheart?" Geesh. Both the GOP and Fox News constantly and consistently instructed them to disagree with everything Obama and liberals do, no matter what. Even the health of their kids' school lunches became an assault upon their "rights" and "freedom" and "democracy." Pushing non-issues such as birth certificates and Benghazi as headline issues, well beyond their political expiration dates, only radicalized American Conservatives into a frenzied, irrational mob that began to define everybody else as the enemy and they blamed liberals (and everybody else) for everything in their lives. And now, they simply follow along with whatever Trump tells them like zombies. This is why they all appear to accept that everything now is merely "fake news," except for Fox News. But even with Fox, we have seen them denigrate anchors who dare alter the propaganda course and not worship the current demagogue in the White House.

<snip good history points>

American Conservatives to include of course many Republicans want a strongman republic first and foremost. Pretensions of democracy can be tolerated by 'em. Classic liberalism, however, never. Putin's their guy all the way and Trump is his agent. American Conservatives have got their long dreamed for deliverance; they love it and they are determined not to allow the moment to pass.

These are good historical points. But I still don't see a Trump/Putin direction among American Conservatives. They flip back and forth on Putin because Trump flips back and forth on Putin. And Trump's desire to be liked by Putin is just an across-the-board character flaw in Trump. He appears to be the kind of guy who will do and say anything in the moment so that the room will like him, which is why he so hypocritical and inconsistent. But Putin is smart and merely exploits that (to what should be our embarrassment because the entire world sees it). I don't think there is anything more than that. I mean, as we have all witnessed, there is not a lot of rational thought going on in the Right these days.

And, of course, in 2020, Trump will be bounced. Considering his very poor behavior, poor decision-making, and the absence of Hillary Clinton, Trump simply will not get the swing votes again. The GOP is going to have to either conduct an absurdly massive PR campaign to spin as much as possible leading up to 2020...or dump Trump. Even they have to know that Trump is their worst political enemy in 2020.

 

[MSgt]

It's amusing watching Democrats (who practically loath the military) get wrapped around the axle by a single advisor's suggestion, which was rejected. It's obviously political. I wonder what they're saying about Trump wanting a bigger military and more money to fund it. Obvious Russian collusion!

Oh, that day has passed. Conservatives don't get to play the troop card against Liberals anymore. Not after denigrating Clinton and Obama for not serving, then ignoring that fact when it came to Trump. Not after allowing Trump to get away with denigrating Vietnam Veterans and American POWs in every American war, and then shrugging off Trumps arbitrary cultural jab at another politician during what was supposed to be a solemn event of reverence in the Oval Office for WWII Vets of the Pacific.

And I don't know about what "liberals" think about Trump wanting more money for a bigger military, but I would point out that massively decreasing government revenue through a tax-cut Bill was not the first best step. Oh, and there's that wall thing. Besides, more money to the "military" has normally meant feeding Defense contracts so that American citizens in factories across the nation can have jobs, making **** the military doesn't need. I'll remind you...

- When the military was hurting during the 1990s for money to repair equipment and purchase ammo for training, Defense contacts still got their money. In 2003, troops were buying body armor out of their paychecks.

- When the military was calling in air strikes in 2003 and 2004 and 2005, the sorties were being stacked and troops had to wait in line because there wasn't enough air assets to deliver ground support on demand. In the mean time, the F/A-22 program, argued as a ground support weapon in the early 1990s, was receiving billions and billions of dollars and did nothing for the troop throughout the war.

So, Trump's want for more money for the "military," largely means nothing to the troop.

 

[American]

Oh, that day has passed. Conservatives don't get to play the troop card against Liberals anymore. Not after denigrating Clinton and Obama for not serving, then ignoring that fact when it came to Trump. Not after allowing Trump to get away with denigrating Vietnam Veterans and American POWs in every American war, and then shrugging off Trumps arbitrary cultural jab at another politician during what was supposed to be a solemn event of reverence in the Oval Office for WWII Vets of the Pacific.

And I don't know about what "liberals" think about Trump wanting more money for a bigger military, but I would point out that massively decreasing government revenue through a tax-cut Bill was not the first best step. Oh, and there's that wall thing. Besides, more money to the "military" has normally meant feeding Defense contracts so that American citizens in factories across the nation can have jobs, making **** the military doesn't need. I'll remind you...

- When the military was hurting during the 1990s for money to repair equipment and purchase ammo for training, Defense contacts still got their money. In 2003, troops were buying body armor out of their paychecks.

- When the military was calling in air strikes in 2003 and 2004 and 2005, the sorties were being stacked and troops had to wait in line because there wasn't enough air assets to deliver ground support on demand. In the mean time, the F/A-22 program, argued as a ground support weapon in the early 1990s, was receiving billions and billions of dollars and did nothing for the troop throughout the war.

So, Trump's want for more money for the "military," largely means nothing to the troop.

It means nothing to you. All you're bitching about stuff that happened before Trump, is irrelevant.

 

[Tangmo]

That would be that "golden age" sentiment. But I'm not so sure about wanting Putin's world. I don't think American Conservatives know what they want. Just look where they were and what they are now...

- From working with Democrats to fix the hole in the Ozone Layer - to denying the science of Global Warming because Liberals accept it.
- From supporting McCain because he served - to laughing with Trump as he denigrates Vietnam Vets.
- From holding evangelists, like Swaggart and Bakker, and Bill Clinton accountable for sexual misconduct and adultery - to defending Trump's recording and Roy Moore's past.
- From complaining about Obama increasing the national debt - to praising Trump for increasing it.
- From scoffing and criticizing communism and socialism - to flipping opinions about Putin back and forth in accordance to what Trump say's from week to week.

I don't think American Conservatives have an identity anymore because they had spent eight years being broken down by the GOP's silly little Tea Party shallow rhetoric and Fox News' propaganda. Remember when Sarah Palin was "America's Sweetheart?" Geesh. Both the GOP and Fox News constantly and consistently instructed them to disagree with everything Obama and liberals do, no matter what. Even the health of their kids' school lunches became an assault upon their "rights" and "freedom" and "democracy." Pushing non-issues such as birth certificates and Benghazi as headline issues, well beyond their political expiration dates, only radicalized American Conservatives into a frenzied, irrational mob that began to define everybody else as the enemy and they blamed liberals (and everybody else) for everything in their lives. And now, they simply follow along with whatever Trump tells them like zombies. This is why they all appear to accept that everything now is merely "fake news," except for Fox News. But even with Fox, we have seen them denigrate anchors who dare alter the propaganda course and not worship the current demagogue in the White House.

My replies have to manage your posts for you otherwise I have to snip throughout 'em to get in each precious word of mine own.


American Conservatives have been reacting consistently and forcefully against immigration since the 1960s. That is when LBJ especially and the Democrats of the time -- the Civil Rights Movement -- banged up against the brick wall of racism in the American culture. Four hundred years of it to include a Civil War. The conclusion of the Great Society Democrats of the time was to significantly reduce immigration from white racist Europe. It was concomitantly to open the immigration doors to Central Americans, South Americans and, most recently, East Asians from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan but China in particular. The opening includes SE Asia over to South Asia, i.e., India.

The browning of America predicated in numbers was viewed from the mid 1960s to the election of Trump as the only way to overcome the inherent racism of American culture and society. We weren't ever going to preclude racism, we haven't precluded or neutralized racism, and we aren't going to achieve this imperative goal by changing the substantial number of racist whites and their eternal culture of racism. The Browning of America as it's so often called most recently is the only way to subdue and minimize racism. By numbers of 'em. The rightwhinge in their racialism knows this, is well aware of it, and of course opposes becoming outnumbered by people of color in the US becoming the majority of the population.

Hence the vitriol against the Browning and the people of color or ethnicity other than European being given access to residency, citizenship, voting etc etc. The most horrible myths imaginable are the standard fare of the right as it uses anything and everything to try to reverse what they see as the hordes transiting our borders from the south and the east. The right to include the great majority of Republicans know their domination over the society, culture, lawmaking, judicial rulings etc etc will be subsumed by the Browning of America that began in the mid 1960s forward to the present and beyond. Throw 'em out and shut 'em out is the Trump reply who announced his campaign for the Republican nomination and then sought the presidency on the basis of stopping and reverseing (sharply) the flow of immigration that has been occurring for 50 years and the Browning (as it were) that would otherwise continue. This includes of course a certain minority religion in USA the Right sees as alien to American culture -- Muslims.

There is nothing superficial or glossy about this; it is real and profoundly so over decades of time, events, developments. Conservatives aren't also called reactionaries for nothing.

 

[cuban smokes]

Happens when you have inexperienced people in positions like this.

LOL ....................... like a POTUS with the political experience of a house fly? :lol: